On 2003-11-26T05:24:56-0800, Steve Dekorte wrote: > I'd suggest looking into how much easier it is > to implement distributed objects in a language with forwarding. This sentence presupposes that it is much easier to implement distributed objects in a language with forwarding. This claim is hardly defined, much less argued or proven, here or in a reference. > C++ doesn't even compile the method names into the executable, so > forwarding is impossible at the level of native C++ message calls. This reasoning is unsound. For example, it is easy to implement Smalltalk without compiling anything into any executable, yet according to you, Smalltalk supports forwarding. > Without good empirical data, we don't know what the ideal system is so > doesn't seem prudent to dismiss either position (even in it's extreme) > as simply the result of ignorance or capriciousness (as was done in the > post that started this thread). I assume you are referring to Shriram's post. It does nothing of the sort you suggested. Specifically, it does not dismiss any position regarding how useful static or dynamic typing is. -- Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig Tax the rich! new journal Physical Biology: http://physbio.iop.org/ What if All Chemists Went on Strike? (science fiction): http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2003/2506/iw3_letters.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature